The Wanderer writes:
> As to why it's listed as being a conflict, my understanding is that the
> upstream e16 used to be called enlightenment - that upstream, in fact,
> considers them to be in some sense different versions of the same
> package. (This is part of why it seems to me that there *sh
On 10/13/2009 02:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
The Wanderer writes:
The e16keyedit package used to depend on (or, rather, recommend)
the enlightenment package. It now recommends on the e16 package.
The enlightenment package has been removed from Debian, with the
justification that it has been re
The Wanderer writes:
> (Also, unrelated: the Debian mailing list etiquette page says not to
> CC someone on a post to the list unless specifically requested.
Right, thanks for taking notice of that.
> However, hitting Reply on a list message populates the To field only
> with the previous poste
The Wanderer writes:
> The e16keyedit package used to depend on (or, rather, recommend) the
> enlightenment package. It now recommends on the e16 package. The
> enlightenment package has been removed from Debian, with the
> justification that it has been replaced by the e16 package.
> The enligh
On 10/13/2009 11:38 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, The Wanderer wrote:
That's what I'd have thought, but I've run across a package which
does seem to do this, and the maintainer seems to consider it an
acceptable situation. Before trying to argue too much about that, I
wanted to
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:23:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> That's what I'd have thought, but I've run across a package which does
> seem to do this, and the maintainer seems to consider it an acceptable
> situation. Before trying to argue too much about that, I wanted to
> confirm that it was
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, The Wanderer wrote:
> That's what I'd have thought, but I've run across a package which does
> seem to do this, and the maintainer seems to consider it an acceptable
> situation. Before trying to argue too much about that, I wanted to
> confirm that it was in fact 'officially'
On 10/13/2009 09:47 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
The question itself, in its starkest form, is simple.
Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of
anot
On 10/13/2009 11:19 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
(Also, unrelated: the Debian mailing list etiquette page says not to
CC someone on a post to the list unless specifically requested.
However, hitting Reply on a list message populates the To field only
with the previous poster's own address, and hittin
On 10/13/2009 09:50 AM, sean finney wrote:
hi,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of
another package to silently break the system?
what de
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> The question itself, in its starkest form, is simple.
> Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
> package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of another
> package to silently break the system
hi,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
> package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of another
> package to silently break the system?
what defines "silently break the system"? that's
I am not certain that this is the correct list for this question; it is
a question about Debian's policy, but I am not certain that it is about
the type of policy which is covered by the debian-policy manual and thus
the type which is to be discussed here.
I have not been able to find a formal st
13 matches
Mail list logo
